Recent Developments in Routing

1. Recent Developments in Routing EE122 Fall 2011 Scott Shenker http://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~ee122/ Materials with thanks to Jennifer Rexford, Ion Stoica, Vern Paxsonand other colleagues at Princeton and UC Berkeley

2. How about trying undergraduate research? • Work at cutting edge of EECS • Meet profs, grad students outside class • See if you’d enjoy graduate school • Make résumé more competitive Prof. Armando Fox will give an informal presentation on “getting started in undergrad research” on Tuesday, Nov. 15, 6pm in the Woz (he’s the one on the left)

3. Announcements • New homework policy: • Assignments: easy • Worksheet: hard (material will be on final) • All regrade requests should be in…. • Project 3: an introduction to it next lecture • Rearranged lecture schedule, so I will give SDN talk • Followed by presentations on project itself • Can do project without SDN (that’s the point of SDN!), but you won’t know why it is so cool….

4. Holy Trinity of Routing: LS, DV, PV • Normally presented as the complete story • But we know how to do much better • Some hacks deployed today • Some research proposals not deployed. • That is what we will talk about today…..

5. Another Purpose for Today • EE122 (CS version) is algorithmically vacuous • AIMD is the high point of intellectual depth (ugh) • The algorithms described today are nontrivial • Algorithms simple, but their properties are nonobvious • You will prove two results as a class exercise • 5 minutes, in groups, try to come up with reasoning • I’ll help shape it into a proof

6. RoutingChallenge: Resilience • Basic routing algorithms rely on timely consistency or global convergence to achieve ensure delivery • LS: routers need to have same picture of network • PV/DV: if algorithm hasn’t converged, might loop • As nets grow, this gets harder and takes longer • Need both consistency/convergence and timeliness! • Lag between failure detection and recovery • Lag is biggest barrier to achieving 99.999% reliability

7. Hacks Used Today • Preconfigured backup paths • When link fails, router has a backup route to use • Very helpful against single failures • Only limited protection against multiple failures • No systematic paradigm • ECMP: Equal-Cost Multipath • Similar to backups, but narrower applicability • Choose among several “shortest-paths”

8. Solutions Presented Today • Multipath (one slide) • Failure-carrying packets • Routing-along-DAGs • Preventing policyoscillations (if time)

9. Multipath Routing • Multipath: • Providing more than one path for each S-D pair • Allow endpoints to choose among them • Good: if one path goes down, can use another • Bad: Delay while endpoints detect failure (RTT) • Absolutely necessary because of E2E arguments • But not a fundamental paradigm shift • Part of solution, but still need more reliable routing

10. Fundamental Question Can we completely eliminate the need to “reconverge” after link failures? i.e., can we tolerate failures without losses?

11. Failure-Carrying Packets(FCP)

12. FCP Approach: Step 1 • Ensure all routers have consistent view of network • But this view can be out-of-date • Consistency is easy if timeliness not required • Use reliable flooding • Each map has sequence number • Routers write this number in packet headers, so packets are routing according to the same “map” • Routers can decrement this counter, not increment it • Eventually all routers use the same graph to route packet • This achieves consistency, but not timeliness….

13. FCP Approach: Step 2 • Carry failure information in the packets! • Use this information to “fix” the local maps • When a packet arrives and the next-hop link for the path computed with the consistent state is down, insert failure information into packet header • Then compute new paths assuming that link is down • If failure persists, it will be included in next consistent picture of network • Then not needed in packet header

14. Example: FCP routing B D IP packet A F source destination C E

15. (D,F) (C,E) (C,E) IP packet IP packet Example: FCP routing B D IP packet A F source destination C E

16. Class Exercise: Prove This Works • Develop line of argument about why this guarantees connectivity • Under what circumstances does guarantee hold?

17. Keys to Proof • Deadend: as long as map plus failures has connectivity, no dead ends • Loops: Assume loop. The nodes on the loop all share the same “consistent” map plus a set of failures in the packet header. Therefore, they compute the same path. Contradiction.

18. Condition for Correctness • Consider a set of changes to network from the last consistent map before packet is sent until TTL of packet would expire. • If intersection of all network states during change process is connected, then FCP will deliver packet

19. Properties of FCP • Guarantees packet delivery • As long as a path exists during failure process • Major conceptual change • Don’t rely solely on protocols to keep state consistent • Information carried in packets ensures eventual consistency of route computation • This theme will recur in next design…. • Ion’s Stoica’s thesis!

20. OSPF-overhead FCP-lossrate Results: OSPF vs. FCP • Unlike FCP, OSPF cannot simultaneously provide low churn and high availability OSPF-lossrate Overhead [msgs/sec per link]

21. Bkup-state Bkup-lossrate FCP-state FCP-lossrate Results: Backup-paths vs. FCP • Unlike FCP, Backup-paths cannot simultaneously provide low state and lossrate

22. Problems with FCP • Requires changes to packet header • And packet headers could get long • Requires fast recomputation of routes • Can precompute common cases, but worst case is bad • Does not address traffic engineering • What is that?

23. Traffic Engineering (TE) • Connectivity is necessary but not sufficient • Need to also provide decent service • Requires that links on the path not be overloaded • Congestion control lowers drop rate, but need to provide reasonable bandwidth to connections by spreading load • TE is a way of distributing load on the network • i.e., not all packets travel the “shortest path”

24. 5 Minute Break Questions Before We Proceed?

25. Routing Along DAGs(RAD)

26. Avoiding Recomputation: Take II • Recover from failures without global recomputation • Support locally adaptive traffic engineering • Without any change in packet headers, etc. • Or requiring major on-the-fly route recomputation

27. Background • Focus only on routing table for single destination • Could be a prefix, or a single address • Today we compute paths to particular destination • From each source to this destination there is a path • When path breaks, need to recompute path • The source of all our troubles!

28. Our Approach: Shift the Paradigm Routing compute paths from source to destination If a link fails, all affected paths must be recomputed Move from path to DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph) Path DAG X X • Packets can be sent on any of the DAG’s outgoing links • No need for global recomputation after each failure

29. DAG Properties • Guaranteed loop-free • Local decision for failure recovery • Adaptive load balancing X X 0.7 0.3

30. Load Balancing • Use local decisions: • Choose which outgoing links to use • Decide how to spead the load across these links • Push back when all outgoing links are congested • Send congestion signal on incoming links to upstream nodes • Theorem: • When all traffic goes to a single destination, local load balancing leads to optimal throughput • Simulations: • In general settings, local load balancing close to optimal

31. DAG-based Routing • Essentially a principled paradigm for backup paths • Can tolerate many failures • Scalable • Easy to understand and manage

32. Computing DAG • DAG iff link directions follow global order • Computing a DAG for destination v is simple: • Essentially a shortest-path computation • With consistent method of breaking ties • Order by d.i where d is distance and i is identity

33. What about Connectivity? • Multiple outgoing links improve connectivity • But can RAD give “perfect” connectivity? • If all outbound links fail that node is disconnected • Even if underlying graph is still connected • How can we fix this?

34. Link Reversal • If all outgoing links fail, reverse incoming links to outgoing X X X X

35. RAD Algorithm • When packet arrives, send out any outgoing link • When an outgoing link fails (or is reversed) • If other outgoing links exist, do nothing • If no other outgoing links exist, reverse all incoming links • i.e., change them to outgoing

36. Link Reversal Properties • Connectivity guaranteed! • If graph is connected, link reversal process will restore connectivity in DAG • This has been known in wireless literature • Now being applied to wired networks

37. Class Exercise: Prove This Works • Develop line of argument about why this guarantees connectivity • Under what circumstances does guarantee hold?

38. Keys to Proof • Deadend: algorithm never results in dead-ends • If you have a link, you’ll use it • Loops: • Assume network does not have loop at beginning • (i.e., we have a DAG) • Link reversal cannot create a loop • Because reversed node cannot be part of a loop • Therefore, topology never in a state where a loop exists • Are we done with proof?

39. No, link reversals might not terminate • Must prove topology reaches fixed point • If underlying graph is connected • Not reaching a fixed point means process of node reversals continues forever • Since network is of finite size, this process must repeat in a cycle of node reversals • How can we prove this is impossible?

40. Fact #1 • If a node has a path to the destination, then it will never reverse itself. • Conclusion: the set of nodes with a path to the destination is nondecreasing

41. Fact #2 • For a node to do a second link reversal, all of its neighbors must have also reversed its links. • Therefore, the set of nodes doing a link reversal is an expanding set • Can only re-reverse all reversing nodes if the process reaches the “edge” of network • But once this process touches a node which is connected to the source, it stops. QED.

42. Summary of RAD • Local responses lead to: • Guaranteed connectivity • Close-to-optimal load balancing • Can be used for L2 and/or L3 • No change in packet headers

43. Why Isn’t RAD Enough? • The link reversals are on the “control plane” • They take time to compute • Packets can be lost in the meantime… • Exactly the problem with FCP route recomputation • Works on control-plane speeds, not data speeds • Any suggestions?

44. Data-Driven Connectivity (DDC) • Define link reversal properties in terms of actions that can occur at data speeds • Events: packet arriving in “reverse” direction • Action: remove that link from outgoing set • Possible action: all ports “bounce back” packets • Can be done in HW • Working to do so in today’s switches….

45. Policy Dispute Resolution

46. Problem: Policy Oscillations • Policy Oscillations are: • Persistent • Hard to determine in advance • Involve delicate interplay of domain policies • Not issue of correctness, but of conflicting preferences • Therefore, can’t just define them away • Need new approach

47. Objectives • Do not reveal any ISP policies • Distributed, online dispute detection and resolution • Routers get to select most preferred route if no dispute resulting in oscillations exist • Account for transient oscillations, don’t permanently blacklist routes

48. 1 2 3 Example of Policy Oscillation “1” prefers “1 3 0” over “1 0” to reach “0” 1 3 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 2 0 3 0

49. 1 2 3 Step-by-Step of Policy Oscillation Initially: nodes 1, 2, 3 know only shortest path to 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 2 0 3 0

50. 1 2 3 Step-by-Step of Policy Oscillation 1 advertises its path 1 0 to 2 1 3 0 1 0 advertise: 1 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 2 0 3 0